minutes... [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 7 -0. item five is commission comments and questions. >> any comments? >> very good. that will place us under your regular calendar for item six a and b. twenty-six hill street. you will consider the certificate of appropriateness and the zoning administrator -- zoning administrator will consider a request for a variance. >> good afternoon, commissioners department staff. the item before you today is a request for a certificate of appropriateness for alterations to contributing building within the liberty hill landmark district located at 26 hill street.

the existing three-story, three unit wood frame building was constructed in 1878. the certificate of appropriateness is being requested to correct violations to the case management, specifically for work that was completed without the benefit of a parent for beyond the scope of previously approved permits. the entire scope of work is limited to areas at the rear of the property and are not visible from the public right-of-way. the enforcement history related to the property was outlined in the case report and stuff conducted multiple site visits to document the work and to ensure the certificate of appropriateness would've just completed work and any additional proposed work. the following scopes of work will be legalized as part of their certificate of appropriateness and will abate the opening enforcement case. remodel and expansion of the existing ground floor unit into unconditioned space, expansion of the existing second floor unit at the northwest corner of the rear, removal, reframing,

and modification of the roof of an existing portion of the building located at the rear that was originally constructed between 1950 and the mid-1990s based on research. in-kind, replacement of an existing guardrail at the rear, and alterations to windows, associated trim and siding at the rear. no work is proposed for the front of the building except the sixth carriage doors facing the street of the ground floor. the other will remain an operable door to access the ground floor unit. staff finds a proposed work conditioned is recommended will be in conformance with the requirements of article ten, with the secretary of interior standards and will be completed in a manner that is compatible with the liberty hill landmark district. the preliminary recommendation is for approval with the following conditions which can be found on page three of the case report. upon issuance of the architectural addendum, the sponsor shall submit a

construction schedule to the planning department and upon issuance of the architectural addendum, the project sponsor shall contact the planning staff members to schedule monthly visits to monitor construction progress. staff has received no public comment prior to or after the distribution packets. in conjunction with a certificate of appropriateness, the work at the rear also requires a very -- were ruled by the zoning administrator for the portion completed within the required rear yard. i am available for questions. the project sponsor is also here with a brief presentation. >> great. thank you. would five minutes be sufficient >> yes, five is great. >> thank you. >> toby morris for the project sponsor.

the 26 hill project involves utilization and renovation of the three unit italian style residential structure. it is located in a tributary in the article ten let's ignite -- designated landmark district. the consistency had standards for the rear yard variance. the scope of the work consists of these changes. the interior renovations and expansion of the lower unit, and unconditioned space under the existing second floor. and interior renovations of the unit itself. taking the existing carriage door at the front and the remaining access to the rear yard and modifications to the rear with new windows, trims, citing, and notably the flattening of the two shed roofs in the rear existing area. on the interior of the walls,

flooring has been removed as documented in the material, meeting standards of the planning code section 1005 f. here is a photo -- sorry, that is the back one. a photo of the interior. here is a photo -- okay. if no visible changes are proposed, it will remain. the only proposed changes to fix one of the carriage doors so it will provide access to the rear yard. the main alteration concerns the rear. and sodas taking priority. there will be two pop outs with roofs and the rear exterior staircase to remain, an existing rear wall. again, the demo drawings in your packet document the work and

resulting in the rear elevation as proposed. this is a photo of the construction as it is done today subject to the suspension of the permit. you can see the flattened roof over the rear popout under a tarp and upper floors that were approved over -- under a separate permit that are not subject to this hearing. the findings where the property will continue to use a three unit structure. no changes to the existence of material and only minimal changes to spatial relationships of the rear. standard two, the historic character of the property is being maintained, no changes to the façade and only minimal changes to the back. the rear will be finished and painted with windows, doors, and trim, and the floor does not apply. standard five, all the standard

features are being retained including the carriage doors that will remain at the rear of the renovations to the simple rear wall and are compatible with original and in keeping with san francisco standards, a simple backyard facing wall. standard six, seven, eight do not apply. standard nine, no historic materials will be destroyed. the pop outs, which postdated the original victorian are proposed with flat roofs. no change in the future. number ten does not apply. so now address the zoning administrator and the various findings, a one, the professional circumstances. the property has two pop outs that are existing and nonconforming. enforcement is 134 and one section -- section 38 would not allow for densification. these pop outs decide the fact that we are moving the roofs and constructing flat roofs and it

will have minimal bearing on the construction site. next slide. such a varied suggest the preservation of rights enjoyed by others in the vicinity and other nearby properties. they have larger encroaching rear yard structures. this will have no impact with public welfare or the general plan. that concludes my presentation. thank you for that. >> thank you. good job. we will take public comment. does any member of the public wish to comment on this item? close public comment and bring it back to the commission. and he questions? >> i moved to approve with the conditions. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to approve this matter with conditions... [roll call]

so moved. that motion passes unanimously 7 -0. zoning administrator, what say you? >> close a public hearing for the variance and approve the grant with the standard conditions. >> that will place us on item seven a and b. you would consider the certificate of appropriateness and the zoning administrator will consider the request for variance. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am with the planning department staff. the application before you is a request for a certificate of appropriateness and variance for the property at 3733, 373,520 th street was a contributor to the liberty hill landmark district designated under article ten of the

planning code. the subject property is occupied by a two story two family residence joined in an east lake -- construction 1880 per the project includes construction of a garage within the front setback area and additional habitable space under the existing building. the garage will have a woodpaneled door and the new addition will be topped with a metal guard rail, a deck, and a new standard to maintain existing pattern of landscaped, front back areas along the subject block space. on the east façade, new wood and aluminum clad wood windows are proposed. the project was presented before the review committee on november 7th, 2018. the proposal has been revised to address the recommendations provided by the a.r.c., which in summary, include minimization of the garage structure, to mimic the existing retaining wall, retention of the existing terrace setback pattern, retention or reconstruction of

the existing historic concrete entry stairs and modification of the proposed deck guardrail to include vertical balusters. a copy of the meeting notes and stuff analysis is included in your packet. the project sponsor is also seeking a variance from the front setback requirements under section 132 of the planning code in addition to the letter of opposition you received this morning, the department has received one letter of support for the project from the neighbor who asserts the proposal maintains the historic integrity of the property. i have a copy of this letter for your records. given the unique topography of the subject block in the subject parcel, the existing pattern of front setback garages, in the project sponsor's response to the comments of the a.r.c., staff is determine the proposed work will be in conformance with the requirements outlined in article ten of the planning code and the secretary of the interior standards. based on the analysis found in the case report, staff recommends approval with the following conditions.

first, that prior to approval of the building permit, the project sponsor shall provide final material samples of the pigmented smooth cement plaster garage cladding and the metal guardrail to department staff or review and approval. second, that prior to approval of the building permit, the project sponsor shall provide material specifications and product cut sheets for any proposed windows and doors to department staff for review and approval, and third, that prior to approval of the building permit, the project sponsor shall provide detailed drawings and/or project specifications for the proposed entry gate to department staff for review and approval. a fourth condition has been formulated in response to public inquiry about the proposed curb cuts since the packets were published. it will be included in an amended draft motion. this condition requires that prior to the approval of the building permits, the project sponsor shall continue to work with department staff on the location and details of the proposed curb cut and garage door.

this concludes my presentation. i have copies of working plans and elevations that were prepared by the project sponsor in response to public opposition for your reference and those were just distributed to you. the sponsor is also in attendance and will make a short presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions you might have. thank you. >> thank you. would five minutes be sufficient >> yes. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. thank you for hearing our case. i think that monica brought you up to date on this relevant point. i wanted to also point out that my clients are here with one of their two boys, they approached me two years ago about constructing a garage for them,

which is very much in need for their growing family, and it does happen to be the neighborhood precedent. you can see here their house is the subject property and the neighborhood pattern is predominantly garages. we did look initially at the idea of having the garage said further back from the street, but it was not feasible to do that, both in terms of the difficulty of construction and engineering, so we decided to pull it out to the street. as monica described, we made quite a few changes in order to satisfy the architectural review committee in november of last year. this is just a site mac -- a site map of the block that shows and purple the houses that have

garages, so it is very clearly the neighborhood pattern. here is my favorite photo that shows the reality of living in a house where you have to climb up both a set of stairs to get to your front door and another set of stairs to get up to the unit when there is no garage. the things that typically live in a garage tend to get destroyed -- put in this stairs. i have some concerns, but that is also a bit of a code violation in terms of egress. my clients are very much eager for the garage and we have made a lot of compromises to our original plan to get to the point where we think it satisfies both that there needs, as well as that of the neighborhood.

i also want to point out that the proposed garage does have some living space behind it, which they very much want to use for their own purposes, and there was a point where we considered converting that space into an accessory dwelling units because my clients very much wanted to try to provide additional housing if that worked out. unfortunately, it was a bit of a dead end because it requires that we had to get an exposure variance and that seems like an uphill battle that couldn't easily be attained. most recently, this past friday, we did hear from someone in the neighborhood that did have concerns about the impact of our project on on street parking. this is something that we took very seriously. my clients understand that on street parking is a challenge in the neighborhood, and so we went back to the drawing board and looked at options as to how we might be able to make some

further design revisions to accommodate that. you can see here in the site plan, this is what exists currently, and this is what we have been approved for. with the curb cut centred on the garage door, pretty much falling equally between two street trees that have been there for a long time. when we looked at various options, we figured out we could make some internal changes in the garage and slide both the garage door and the curb cut further to the west and we could open up what would be a 12-foot long space, which is modest in size, but it could accommodate a small car and would be better than having the curb cut be directly between the two street trees, and elevation, this is

what we are approved for, and you can see the garage door as it aligns, and then with the revised plan, quickly. with the revised plan, use we slid the garage door over and have created a 12-foot space. one thing that we are up against is a street tree that exists on the west, directly to the west side of the property. therefore we couldn't move the curb cut and the garage door any further to get more than a 12- foot space. that might be a reasonable compromise to consider. thank you. >> thank you. >> we will go ahead and take public comment. would any member of the public wish to comment on this item? heidi klein. my apologies. >> okay. hello.

i am a 25 year resident who lives in the neighborhood. i live in affordable housing and i use on street parking. i can't believe planning is actually recommending approval of a new garage in the mission, and one of the densest neighborhood, and right next to dolores park. in total contradiction with the mayors and citywide programs to make our streets safer. vision zero transit first. the new garage is right up on the sidewalk so the curb comes out right in front of thousands of people that are going to dolores park. some of the distracted people with their children pushing a stroller, et cetera, going to the park doesn't see the car parking and we know what happens this happens to me every day when i walk up the street. planning has four policy documents on garages and on street parking. one, the mission street scape for the design plan that this was especially street that was

earmarked to add on street parking and not removing it like is being proposed. the project doesn't comply with the other three. guidelines to adding garages, residential goes -- assigned guidelines in the code itself. and the department own residential design team is not supportive of new garages for homes without them because it replaces a public space with a private one and decreases pedestrian safety. yet despite all this, here we are. we're mitigating impact but using the same design as other buildings on the block. garage on one side and stairs on the other like the last one. then only one on street parking space is being removed instead of two. and you can co- mingle with one of the existing neighbors, plus the owner is unwilling to give up their favorite street tree. instead, they want their two car garage, exercise, media rooms, wine storage and control of all other 25 feet of street frontage

so no one else can park. the proverbial, i want to have my cake and eat it too. the 12-foot on street parking space is just a ruse. as m.t.a. it will read curb anything less than 14. an important overlook issue here is privatization of a public resource. it is an important resource for people in affordable housing, as well as daytime workers in this racially and economically diverse neighborhood. it's removal is not discussing anywhere, not on the plans, the public mood or staff report. this is a systemic practice that needs to be corrected to continue san francisco's future as an economic place to live and work. please take a giant step forward towards correcting this inequality by requiring the inclusion of the removal of on street parking in your reviews, public notices, and showing it on the plans for all future projects. i urge you to deny this project as an inconvenient process with

the established street pardons on the block as well as at least six city policy programs. and they clearly have received a variance ten years ago for the rear yard, so not only have they -- >> your time is up. >> thank you. >> any other members of the public? closed public comment and bring it back to the commission. commissioner pearlman? >> thank you. i was on the a.r.c. and saw this project when it came through before. i was someone who made the comment about the front railing being vertical instead of horizontal. i look at the drawings. it is still horizontal despite what staff has said. i just want to get some clarity if that railing will be vertically oriented. thank you. >> yes, it will. you did not update the their

elevation to show that. >> i wanted to be sure that it was honored. >> i agree. we have been through a lot of iterations. i apologize. for sure, that can be a condition of approval, absolutely. >> okay. >> that is it. >> do we have a motion? >> i move we approved with conditions. >> including -- >> yes. including the conditions to have the staff asking to review the details as part of the commission. >> we don't have to add it. >> it will be amended in the draft motion. >> thank you. there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions with the amendments read into the record by staff. on that motion... so moved.

that motion passes unanimously 7 -0. zoning administrator, what say you? >> close the public hearing on the variance. in light of the public comment, referencing specific provisions, i want to go back and do do diligence and look over the specific revisions and take this under advisement. >> very good. that will place us on item eight this is a certificate of appropriateness. >> good afternoon, commissioners the application before you is a request for a certificate of appropriateness for the property at 804 to 86,202nd street. the contributor to the dogpatch landmark district designated under article ten of the code and located within it an m.c.

two zoning district. the property has improved with a two story, two family wood frame building constructed in 1895 in the classical revival style of the ground floor. the proposal includes a ground-floor horizontal addition at the rear to encompass the full depth of the lot, which is permitted for commercial uses in the n.c.t. two zoning district. the commercial storefront will also be restored. the one-story vertical addition and three new decks with cable guard rails including one overlooking 20th street, are also proposed. new solar panels will be installed at the roof. the vertical edition will be minimally visible from public rights-of-way at 20th street and tennessee street. the department has received one public inquiry in one letter from a community group in opposition to the project and a summary of this opposition has been included in your packets. the department has received two letters of support since your packets were published and i have copies of those letters for your reference which were just

distributed. these letters state the project is in keeping with the dynamic quality of the dogpatch neighborhood and that construction will not be disruptive to neighbors including the adjacent saint stephen's baptist church. given the limited visibility of the rooftop features, the setback provided from 20th street and the compatible materials and scale of the vertical edition on a block comprised of three story buildings, staff has determined the proposed work will be in conformance with the requirements outlined in article ten of the planning code and the secretary of the interior standards. based on the analysis found in the case report, staff recommends approval with the following conditions. that prior to the issuance of the building permits, the sponsor will submit product information such as cut sheep or -- cut sheep or drawings for the double hung wood windows and storefront windows and commercial storefront entry for review and approval by planning department staff. this concludes my presentation. the project sponsor is also in attendance and will make a short

presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. would five minutes spee sufficient? thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am architect for the project. what we are doing here, proposing to do is to add a new third floor to the existing two story structure which contains two residential units and some ground floor commercial space. we are looking to add a third floor to increase the main unit for family use. it would have three bedrooms and a guestroom. we are also looking at relocating the second unit, which is now at the rear of the ground-floor space. it is a small one-bedroom unit. it will go to the second floor and converting the entirety of the ground-floor to commercial space and extends the building at that level to the full

coverage of the lot. this will enable a more usable commercial space and reinforce the commercial neighborhood district with a future tenant to be determined. we are looking at creating some outdoor space, which is pretty minimal in the neighborhood, as well as on the lot, by proposing roof decks both at the front and rear, as well as on the top of the building. my client, the owner, would like to have some space to do some gardening and the second unit would also have some outdoor space and the intent here is currently there are parents within the second unit and would remain so. it truly is a family style residence and we are looking at restoring the original, or as close to the original commercial storefront that has since been removed. we do have 3d renderings on the overhead.

this is superimposed on a photograph with the new commercial front, and the third floor is hardly visible. we have some other renderings that are a little less photoshopped. these are from further on the opposite side of the street, more than you would be able to visually see when you are on sight. the third floor does pull back quite a bit and it is fairly simple, flat roof structure, pretty minimal, respecting the original two story structure and is detailing -- we're keeping it fairly simple and straightforward. that is pretty much summing up the project. we are not -- we are the only two story building on this side of the street. the building site is framed by a three-story four story structure

on the western side and a three-story structure on the corner that is currently used as a church. our proposed addition would not be any higher than the adjacent structures and it is in keeping with the fabric of the neighborhood. thank you. >> great. thank you let me open public comment. i have two speaker cards. >> hello, commissioners. the reason why i'm here is because i do oppose the current building plan. i don't think that it really fits into the neighborhood according to article ten. it is not consistent with the other buildings on that block.

it all it says in article ten that they can be made compatible since it is not. the building, the ground-floor goes up against my property line and is right in front of a light well, which is visible and you see into the bathroom and two bedrooms on the second floor. and as they go up, the sightlines will be into the light well. it disturbs the light and air from my property. it is an old property. this is the one that is being remodelled. they are taking off the roof, which is pretty amazing in a historic district, especially considering the neighborhood in itself, there's a couple of projects in front of you now on the same block that they are restoring their property. they are removing that roof, which is unique to that building

, and they are putting back on a flat roof with decks, with front and back. to me, that is just powerful building when it looks out at the other backyards within that neighborhood on the 800 block of 202nd street, on minnesota street, the 900 block, none of the buildings conform or look like the building that is being built. the other thing that i think about is in 2010, there was a commercial building on the corner, to stay flat commercial space. the fellow wanted to demolish it and then put in a ground-floor restaurant and two units above, and when you read before the historic review board and all of that, he was denied because they said it was blocking the light

on the building that it would sit up against. eventually he withdrew his permits and a business on the 800 block took over that project and they maintained the historic value of that building. i really don't think they deserve this certificate of appropriateness at this time. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners i am a longtime resident of dogpatch and i live at 1080 tennessee street. i am above the rear of the proposed project. as a result of living directly behind this expansive proposed project and the proposed alterations, it is primarily the most effective building of all in our neighborhood. while i am not 100% in agreement

with the design of the project, my main concern is i will lose the majority of the light and air in my residents. the only windows have three roofs on the abutting property line site and the access to natural light and air will be greatly impacted. i am requesting there be a commendation for the designed to maintain a light well and air shaft so they continue to function providing much needed light and air. thank you for your consideration >> thank you. any other member of the public wishes to comment on this item? closing public comment and we will bring it back to the commission. commissioners? >> thank you very much. i know this couple and i know this property fairly well. i used to live in the dogpatch area and i am quite familiar with it. i wanted to respond to the two speakers only because pretty much everything they talked about was not laid to the historic character, i mean,

almost everything. the speakers talked about a lot of things that are planning issues in terms of light wells, and coverage on the lot, which the zoning allows, i understand, but those are things that we can't really address. i do want to go to the historic issues at hand here. i know the current front -- basically what you see from the street, dogpatch is really developing quite a bit in the past ten or 15 years and in particular, these two blocks from third street to minnesota and tennessee have really, you know, been improved quite substantially. this storefront is not historic, it is kind of junkie looking, it has -- it is kind of modern. what they're doing on the storefront is exactly the right thing. i also know that there are very large trees on this block and i

think even with the setback, it is minimally visible, so this has a fairly high and large cornice that sticks out, so visibly from the street, i think this is appropriate and fits in. we're not talking about a landmark, we're talking about historic resource. i do think it is appropriate to the block it is on. it is the smallest one on that side of the street, and again, it is not bringing the map out to the front, it is pushing it back quite substantially, and the storefront is quite appropriate for the district. >> thank you. anyone else? >> thank you. i drove by the place. i'm kind of interested in this. my impression was similar to what you have said that i don't think that the massing on top is

going to be a problem. i think it is a good project. >> anyone else? commissioner black? >> i concur. the improvement on the storefront is really noticeable. it is going to be a big benefit to the neighborhood on the street level. i also went by the property. i do think it will be difficult to see the upper-level addition, and the structure is sandwiched between two other structures, so i don't think the height is incompatible. i understand why members of the community are concerned about planning related things, which are really not in our purview, so from a standpoint of the criteria that we need to apply, i will be supporting this project. >> thank you. any other comments?

>> i moved to approve with conditions. >> second. >> thank you. on that motion to approve this matter with conditions... [roll call] so moved. the motion passes unanimously 7- 0. placing us on items nine a through e. properties at 2251 webster street, 1401 howard street, 2168 martin street, 27301 through 2735 some street. these are all mills act

applications. i understand that commissioner foley, you need to recuse yourself. you have to recuse yourself for all of them. >> can we have a motion, please? >> i move that we remove commissioner foley. >> thank you. [roll call] >> i will remind you, commissioner foley, as a new commissioner, you need to file some paperwork with the ethics commissioner within 15 days. >> thank you. could i please have the screen? good afternoon, commissioners. michel taylor, planning department staff. the items before you today are the five mills act historical property contracts. it was legislation authorizing

local governments to enter into contracts with private owners of qualified historic properties. this agreement provides property tax reductions to owners at those historic properties who can allocate the savings towards improved maintenance and restoration plan. the department currently holds -- holds 37 active mills act contracts. the department received seven applications for the may 1st filing date. we reviewed their own applications and deemed two of them incomplete. the staff is working with the property owners of those incomplete applications to file complete applications for the next mills act cycle. for the remaining five applications, staff conducted preapproval inspections and worked with applicants to revise riba location, restoration, and maintenance plans as necessary. all five property owners will enter into a mills act contract with the city. the agreements are a ten-year

revolving contract that are renewed annually. your commission packets contain a draft evaluation for each property outlining the potential property tax savings. these figures were compiled by the assessor recorder's office. each property has outlined with the assistance of the department staff the rehabilitation and maintenance plans that ensure work will be conducted in conformance with the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation. 2251 less webster street is located on the left side between washington enclave street. it is a contributing building to the webster street historic district. it is a two story basement with single-family dwelling designed in the italian style and built circa 1900. the applicant completed some rehabilitation of the building in 2019 including drive out to repair and painting with an estimated cost of $12,650.

the proposed reability asian plan includes in-kind window replacement, interior plaster and repair from an exterior leak in-kind replacement of the front and rear doors, roof repair and replacement. [please stand by]

>> the subject properties and a three-story miss sonnery building designed for survival style by architect john somebodier jj.foley.

it was submitted to demonstrate the exemption would assist in the preservation of a property that might be in danger of demolition or substantial allerrations. alterations.

>> there will be entry lobby floors, plaster detailing and woodwork. maintenance work will cost $31,000 annually. al proposeall proposed work wilt standards. the property meets two of the five priority considerations. they will invest money other than for routine maintenance. additionally the proposed rehabilitation project will preserve a distinctive example of a renaissance revival church and there will be a savings of $66,394. it's on the east side of patomic

street. this was fro from 1899. front facade window repair and placement and rehabilitation work will cost $126,035 over ten years. the proposed maintenance plan includes annual inspection of roof, gutters, down spots, foundation and woodsideing and trim.

the proposed rebull takes will require significant associated costs to ensure the presen presn of the property. it will be other than routine maintenance and the proposed rehabilitation project will preserve a distinctive example of a victoryian home. there will be $22,692 or 74.46 reduction from factory-based year value. 2168 market street is a three-story wood-framed commercial building constructed in 1907. by master architect, ark arkus mordn. in 2015, the applicants performed a full building rehabilitation including seismic

strengthening. the proposed plan includes repair and restoration work to the exterior entry, replace of a historic door with accessible door at the main entrance, replacing a noncompatible window and restoring bricks at the front facade. it's estimated to cost over $95,000 over ten years. the proposed maintenance plan includes any necessary repairs to the front facade windows and wood element and roof on a regular basis. maintenance work is estimated to cost $7500 annually. all proposed work will meet the secretary of the interior standards. the property meets three of the five priority considerations. distinctiveness, recently designated landmark and business. it represents the arts and craft architecarchitectural style ands

listed to historic places in 2019. this is a registered regularly business. the property will not receive a property tax savings. the property owner is aware they will not receive a savings but would like to move forward knowing that the property will be evaluated in the future. it's valued at over $3 million. there fore, historic structure report was submitted to demonstrate the granting that would exist in the preservation of a property that might be in

danger of demolition or substantial alterations. the building underwent a full rehabilitation by a previous owner including full repainting, facade restructuring and reroofing. proposed rehabilitation plan includes dry rot repair of wood elements at the base of the building, repair and restoration of windows and repaint exterior, replace reflashing and full lie roof the building. rehabilitation work is estimated to cost $305,000 over ten years. out the proposed maintenance plan includes inspection of gutters and downspouts, windows, front facade and roof. maintenance will cost $5,348 annually. all proposed work is intended to meet the secretary of the interior standards. tthe subject property meets thre

consistors, distinctiveness and recently designated city landmark. it represents a well preserved example of the bozart style architecture and the property owner will be investing additional money towards rehabilitation other than for routine maintenance and the city of san francisco designated the building as an individual landmark under article 10. the estimated property tax savings is $35,495 and is a 49.6% reduction from the base value. the department staff recommends historic preservation commission, recommended approval of all five milisac recollections for the following reasons. the properties are all qualified historic resources. the maintenance plans were found to be appropriate and all proposed work is intended to meet the secretary of the

interior standards. this concludes my presentation. i and my colleagues are happy to answer any questions, as are the property representatives in attendattendance today. thank you. >> public comment? we have some speaker cards. we'll start with sally sadusky. and then sarah o'rourke is up next. >> good afternoon, i'm at 2251 webster street. i find out about this about two years ago and was extatic because it would help me use the tax-savings toward the restoration of the door and windows and deepenin keeping myl painted lady up to par. i want to thank shannon and michelle for being so transport and making it incredibly easy. so i look forward to your approval and to keeping my house, which is on the tour

route everyday at 1:00, picture worthy, thank you. >> sarah o'rourke and gustav linquist. >> i represent ken folk for the st. joseph's art society. this is a cultural organization dedicated to supporting the arts in our community. we are comprised of two separate organizations, the art society for-profit and foundation which is for the nonprofit. both organizations are committed to supporting artists and allowing them to flourish in their career. we support many 501 seats in our space and supported over 20 events in the one year we have been open. additionally we open daily tours to the public to see st. josephs. we applied because our mills are large and our building is tall, approximately 132 feet. but yet, we take up a small footfingerprint. we plan to use the funds to

maintain long-term maintenance of the church. thank you for your consideration. >> thank you. >> gustav linquis and then ted olsen. >> hello. i'm here with my wife and we're the owners of 6 63 that patomic. it's in pretty bad shape. yet we're excited restore it and fits nicely in with this beautiful area down by the park. any massivings will off-set the costs. findly, no matter how this goes, a big thank you to michelle and miss shannon for their amazing work and it's been a pleasure working with you. thank you. >> thank you, ted olson. >> good afternoon, commissioners

and president hiland. i'm ted olson and i'm president of the swedish society of san francisco incorporated in 1875 in california, builders and owners of the swedish american hall at 267, also a california resource and they forwarded it to the u.s. registrar. the hall is located at 2168-74 market street. on behalf of our board and members, i thank the planning department and staff for helping us to prepare and for supporting or application for mill's act nomination and approval. at the time of the 1906 earthquake, my paternal graph, grandfather was secretary of this society at their scandinavian hall across from what is the main library, but which and there was under

construction for the new city hall. the earthquake demolished the city hall and our city hall so they considered erecting a new city hall in what became the scandinavian sector of our city. my grandfather was a member of the society's construction committee and hired the major architect and once the hall was completed, my maternal grandfather managed the mall for the next quarter century. marty benson, a former appraiser is the grandson of our contractor for the hall. who together with his brother and several other swedish craftsmen built the hall in a year. i say this because the entire board has restored and renovated the hall and all of us are to

maintain the historic building to preserve there a centre for promoting our swedish and scandinavian cultures and continuing to provide a distinctive night spot. we also provide occasional civic programmes and we would appreciate your support of our mill's act nomination before the board of supervisors. thank you and i'm available for any questions you may have. >> adel fung. >> i am one of four co-owners of 275 fullsome street. most of the major rehabilitation work was done from 2012 to 2014 under the previous owners. but we as the new owners are

looking to tackle a number of major scope items on specifically of wood deterioration and the curbed wood te deterioration, the compe reroofing and attention to an overlooked slightly inaccessible patch of land that started to grow vegetation.

the rehabilitation needs came on our radar as homeowners, wear and tear of the original curved windows and even the mosaic that revealing, especially the turette was older than it looks from the strateg street view. we readdressed the items over the next three years focusing on the wood rot with the upcoming rainy season and curved windows. we hope that the city is able to support us in this investment. i appreciate the opportunity to introduce myself and to give the vote of confidence that the property tax savings from the mill's act contract will truly help offset costs as we maintain our fulsome house.

thank you for your consideration. >> any other members of the public wish to address this item? closing public comment and bringing it back to the commission. >> commissioner black? >> one of the things that struck me as i went through this rather large amount of material is the scope of projects that it is serving, from much larger family and art's organization. these are all important buildings in the city and i love the chance to have a tool like this to have people get their buildings renovated and going. it just adds value to the neighborhood. i'm a supporter. >> is there a motion? >> and that's a motion. ug